Confessions of a Seminarian

Lost in Translation, Part 2

Last week, I wrote about the challenge of communicating relationally in the blogosphere. Now I will discuss the importance of applying this same principle in understanding the Christian faith.

Disclaimer: I do not believe Christianity can be fully communicated in this medium, but I do believe that some understanding can be obtained with hard work and patience. I certainly do not hold to an agnostic epistemology (belief that one cannot know truth or knowledge). However, there are relational limitations to this medium.

In truth, I am ecstatic to be confronted with these limitations! Here’s why…

Scripture (and the Christian faith) is more than information to be digested. If it were only information to be communicated and “believed,” this medium would be perfect. Thankfully, it is FAR more than that! One example of this is a recent article written by our friends at De-Conversion. It compared belief in God to belief in the Loch Ness Monster. The parallel was based on the “fact” of “overwhelming evidence” supporting their non-existence. The cultural legend of Loch Ness continues to live in spite of this evidence due to “emotional attachment” and an unwillingness to “face the facts.” Check this out, where the analogy is extended to killer fans in South Korea and elves in Iceland. This progression of denial-of-the-evidence is a common accusation of Christian belief. If we can’t see it, it must not exist.

Regardless of what one considers “scientific fact” (which is often agenda and/or worldview-driven), there is an underlying assumption in this article that must be addressed: The assumption is that real knowledge is best gained through objective or personally detached analysis. The context of relationship is deemed mostly irrelevant.

To quote Demi Moore from A Few Good Men, “I strenuously object.”

For example: Objectively, my wife is a female. She is made up of chemical DNA, atoms and molecules. If I knew everything there was to know about her anatomically, chemically and biologically, would I know her? I would know about her, but without the relationship with her, she will just be a collection of atoms and molecules to me. All of this is technically correct, but woefully incomplete.

As a seminarian, I can fill my head with systematic theology. But if I do not constantly seek God through prayer and meditation of the Bible, my faith will wilt and wither. I often struggle with this.

St. Augustine said, “I believe in order to know.” We cannot know God without actively entering into a relationship with Him. Scientifically, I can presume to “know” many things about his creation, but without the context of relationship, my capability for knowledge is limited, similar to knowing a person.

Thus science is not wrong, just incomplete and inadequate by itself. Science never claims to be the pathway to all truth. Science helps us understand many things about our world, but it is not designed to answer the question “why?”. Do we truly know God’s creation if we do not know why he created it? Again, all these things are helpful, but not meant to operate to the exclusion of other forms of knowledge.

Here are just a few implications of this:

• The Christian faith cannot be fully, or even mostly, understood from the outside. This is not a cop-out, or an attempt to automatically discredit critique from non-Christians! I cannot emphasize this enough! The Christian faith CAN be critiqued and engaged on many levels, but not to nearly as significant of a degree, even if someone was once a Christian.
• One cannot attain a certainty of the faith until after they believe. Many people do not take that “leap of faith” because they do not want to profess belief in something they do not fully understand. This fairly common approach comes from an incredible heart and not wanting to be unauthentic or hypocritical. Praise God! But I am thankful that God cannot be known outside of relationship with him! I’m thankful we’re all made like that.
• We (COAS writers) cannot fully communicate what it means to be in relationship with God apart from personal interactions with others. Will this stop us from engaging in constructive conversation? No. Just as science can provide some understanding, this medium provides a similar avenue for communicating gospel truth. Yet it is important to acknowledge limitations.

We are constantly seeking new and creative ways to strengthen and develop relationships with our readers. I encourage you to share your thoughts on this often controversial topic and join us as we all grow in our understanding.

Recommended Reading:
Science And Faith: Friends or Foes? by  C. J.  Collins